Can you please hate us for all the right - and irrational - reasons?
In his latest column for Spiked Online, self-confessed Chelsea-hater Duleep Allirajah asks that rival fans hate us for all the right — and irrational — reasons.
Now let’s get just one thing straight: I hate Chelsea. Why? Probably because all the irritating wannabe bovver boys at my south London school supported Chelsea. Admittedly it’s not a particularly rational explanation but then football allegiances are never very rational. ‘I support Chelsea because of their excellent business plan.’ It doesn’t really work like that, does it?
But while I dislike Chelsea for largely parochial reasons, I am also growing rather sick of the increasingly vocal breed of nouveau Chelsea-haters. A cursory scan of football websites and message boards will reveal countless anti-Chelsea screeds. ‘Chelsea are the equivalent of a man who has never given his wife a bunch of flowers, and who goes down the pub with his mates on Valentine’s Day. Chelsea are the death of footballing romance’, writes Paul Tomkins on the Football365 website. If Chelsea are not being accused of buying success, then it’s tapping up other clubs’ players, or playing unattractive football, or making the Premiership predictable and dull.
But it isn’t just embittered rival fans who resent Chelsea’s newly acquired riches. FIFA president Sepp Blatter recently complained about ‘individuals with little or no history of interest in the game, who have happened upon football as a means of serving some hidden agenda…and proceed to throw pornographic amounts of money at it’. Blatter warned that this ‘new money could suffocate a sport that has 1.3billion active followers around the world’. He didn’t name any names but you don’t need to be Sherlock Holmes to work out which particular oligarch he was referring to.
It was inevitable that Chelsea’s wealth would breed resentment. The only surprise is that it’s taken so long to develop. When Roman Abramovich first bought the club, the predominant complaint was that he was a foreign tycoon, probably with dodgy Russian mafia connections, who would treat Chelsea as a plaything which would eventually be discarded. Chelsea were initially shielded from the full force of rival fans’ rouble-envy mainly because they were not Manchester United. In fact, Chelsea’s ascendance last season was positively welcomed because they were undermining the hegemony of Manchester United who, for the last decade, had been universally loathed for their wealth and success.
Sections of the press did start to turn against Chelsea last year after a series of tapping allegations involving Peter Kenyon, but it took longer for ordinary fans to turn Chelsea-phobic. When they secured the title in April, journalist David Hills complained that the antipathy towards Chelsea that existed among the Guardian’s football writers was still not shared by its readership. ‘In February we ran a poll to see whether we were right to feel this way, asking Football Unlimited readers if Chelsea were now more hated than Man United’, wrote Hills. ‘It was close for a while, but 13,245 votes later, the split was 15 per cent Chelsea, 52 per cent United.’
However, now that it is clear that United are a declining power, the green-eyed ‘Anyone But United’ sentiment does appear to be transferring to Chelsea. But, whereas United were seen as the embodiment of the corporate takeover of football — the giant supermarket that was squeezing the life out of the little high-street greengrocer — the hatred of Chelsea is slightly different. Sepp Blatter’s reference to ‘new money’ is particularly telling. It chimes with the sentiments of rival fans who chant ‘Chelsea have got no history’. United were hated for their relentless success, their arrogance and their glory-hunting fans who, heaven forbid, ‘weren’t local’, but nobody questioned their status as ‘a big club’. United, like Liverpool before them, were seen as part of English football’s aristocracy.
Chelsea, however, are seen as vulgar nouveau-riche upstarts. It is bad enough that Chelsea have come into new money but what is worse is their loadsamoney ‘look at my wad’ attitude and utter lack of respect for football’s time-honoured conventions. Whether it is Jose Mourinho publicly criticising referee Anders Frisk (and driving the bronzed prima donna into retirement) or Peter Kenyon tapping up Ashley Cole so indiscreetly, Chelsea are seen to be thumbing their noses at the football establishment.
I’m not suggesting that we should all worship at the feet of Jose Mourinho or wax our pecs in tribute to his smooth-chested players — just that we should detest Chelsea for the right reasons. Deep-seated hatred of their west London postcode; irrational prejudice against any team that plays in royal blue; allergic reaction to hearing their irritating anthem ‘Blue is the colour’; or simple honest loathing of a club whose celebrity fans include those public school mockneys Johnny Vaughan and David Baddiel — these are all perfectly honourable reasons for despising Chelsea.
However, the charge that Chelsea have no ‘history’ — i.e., they are not part of football’s old boys’ network — is a pathetic reason. So what if there are fewer ancestral portraits hanging in their boardroom or that their trophy cabinet is relatively bare? What has history got to do with anything? Having an illustrious history does not mean your club has a God-given right to sit at the top table — ask Sheffield Wednesday. Hatred of Chelsea is not intrinsically objectionable but there’s no excuse for old-fashioned snobbery.
Source: Spiked Online
- Posted at 04:37 PM · Permalink · Print · 2518 views · Last indexed by Google on the 10th May 2008
- Tags: Jose Mourinho, Manager, Peter Kenyon, Roman Abramovich
I don’t think you’ve got the point on this one, if you talk to fans & ask if/why they dislike Chelsea, you often get three camps:
The 3 reds, who are usually glory-hunters & hate us for daring to be better than them.
The poor, who struggle to balance their books every year & loathe the unfairness of our fortunate windfall.
The indifferent, who are mostly concerned with relegation issues or life in the lower leagues (yes they are still there) & so couldn’t give a toss if Chelsea are above the Reds.
So all the talk of history, only ever comes from 3 clubs & as a taunt is aimed at hurting glory-hunters, sung by glory-hunters.
People who support their club for less mercenary reasons really couldn’t care less about such irrelevant & stupid jibes.
What does one say when a non supporter pours out his lungs like that…Nothing
Hating us for any reason at all is plain stupid.
Shove it
Some good points though. It’s not just new money which angers football establishment its also FOREIGN money. English culture has both class conscious and xenophobic elements and it’s no surpirse it shows itself in football which people (all around the world) often transfer their national character and identity into (god knows the ozzies do it with cricket and we’re a pretty xenophobic bunch down here too).
HEY! Just wanted to say well done Wigan in 2nd place showing more heart and hustle than all the ‘historic football royalty’ clubs of the Pool the Arse and ManU who’d better use al their esteemed history and footballing pedigree to make sure they qualify for the champions league this year! People go on about how football is not an even playing field anymore (as if it ever was) and look a 2nd division team comes from nowhere and through hard work rightly sits beneath us at the top of the table! I’m predicting a top 4 of Chelsea, Wigan, Spurs (who’d a thunk it) and Charlton ;b vie la revolution!
People hate us because we have many glory boy supporters who have systematically started supporting us this year.
Dont say its not true because the wind ups that our fans chuck out seem to be pointless and are nothing more than cheap gloating.
The really understand us, you need to understand how bad we have been in the past. If you understand that then you can understand how the multiple variables come together into making many of our fan base twats. They are not footy fans per se. They are the latest generation of interent forum twats who wouldnt know how to kick a ball if it hit them in the face.
The money thing is a non-starter. We have more financial clout than anyone currently. This has knocked on to smaller clubs who are getting priced out of buying players because we are willing to stump up the cash.
By all means, say what you will, but there is no smoke without fire.
Look…
With all due respect, you wouldn’t be where you are without this ludicrous spending.
Your manager is correct in saying that spending doesn’t equal success. He is an excellent manager, there is no denying it, and without his abilities you would be at a loss. Ranieri was rubbish, which proves the point.
But ‘The Special One’ is on the payroll too, don’t forget; ergo he is factored in to the ‘bought success’ argument.
Anyway, a businessman investing in a club, in my personal opinion, is allowed to invest all the money he feels is necessary to build the success.
What irks people, my blue adversaries, is the fact that the spending so patently outweighs the returns. The company’s outgoings do not add up to sensible business practice. Unless… you have no need to (at least) break even on the running of the club.
Mr Abramovich has no need to run Chelsea as one would run a business (in the same manner ever other British footballing institution has been hitherto run) because his personal wealth is so astronomical that he sees it as:
A) a playboy hobby or as you or I might buy a fancy car to show our status.
And
B) a segment of a process of fund transference that is arguably tantamount to money laundering on the scale grossing equivalent to the economies of whole countries.
Mr Abramovich’s ’status’ is beyond the conceivable reach of most businessmen. It is a disgrace to our country and to the history of the good game IN this country that his *ahem* ‘investment’ ever passed the clearly desperately inadequate screening process devoted to it.
OPEN YOUR EYES
that old saying “everyone loves a winner” doesnt ring true in football.
I am a chelsea fan and right now opposing fans hate our club because we are winning a lot.
In the 90″s they hated man u in the 80″s it was` liverpool 70s liverpool and arsenal 60s spurs everton.
why do they not hate those teams now……..because they aint winning anymore.
Man u hate us cos we got more cash than them and gety the players they want….arsenal hate us cos they aint the best in london antmore and we are stealing some of there support from them.
We will go on to dominate the league for at least 5 -7 years yet.
SO MAN URE ,ARSE, AND GERRARD FC BETTER GET USED TO IT.
WIN OR LOSE UP THE BLUES
For a long time now, it has been the general consensus from mainly ManU/Arse/Pool fans that they didn’t dislike Chelsea prior to Roman buying us (certainly not in the same way that they do today). Apparently, they dislike us so much more now because Romans “financial doping” (thanks Wenger) has given Chelsea success without any perceived hard work.
If that is the case, I ask you this: why have Pool / Arse / ManU fans disliked each other since seemingly the beginnings of football ?
I think we would all agree that there has never been the financial disparity in football that exists today.
Based on this hypothesis, I put it to all of you that if a team like Bolton (just picked them out of the air) were to win the Prem next season (and possibly the next few seasons), they too would become the new figurehead of hatred for all the top sides in contention of winning the title. I base this on the question I asked earlier in this post.